heavy moans, during which the attendants looked every moment for his
dissolution. But at length he awaked, as if from sleep, and being
asked the cause of his sighing so deeply, replied:――“I have formerly,
during my frail life, sustained many contests, and many assaults of
Satan; but at present he hath assailed me most fearfully, and put
forth all his strength to devour, and make an end of me at once.
Often before has he placed my sins before my eyes, often tempted me
to despair, often endeavoured to ensnare me by the allurements of the
world; but these weapons were broken by the sword of the Spirit, the
word of God, and the enemy failed. Now he has attacked me in another
way: the cunning serpent has laboured to persuade me {231} that I have
merited heaven and eternal blessedness, by the faithful discharge of
my ministry. But blessed be God, who has enabled me to beat down and
quench this fiery dart, by suggesting to me such passages of Scripture
as these:――‘What hast thou that thou hast not received?――By the grace
of God I am what I am:――Not I, but the grace of God in me.’ Upon
this, as one vanquished, he left me. Wherefore I give thanks to my
God through Jesus Christ, who has been pleased to give me the victory;
and I am persuaded that the tempter shall not again attack me, but,
within a short time, I shall, without any great pain of body, or
anguish of mind, exchange this mortal and miserable life for a blessed
immortality through Jesus Christ.”
He then lay quiet for some hours, except that now and then he desired
them to wet his mouth with a little weak ale. At ten o’clock, they
read the evening prayer, which they had delayed beyond the usual
hour, from an apprehension that he was asleep. After this exercise was
concluded, Dr Preston asked him if he had heard the prayers. “Would
to God,” said he, “that you and all men had heard them as I have heard
them; I praise God for that heavenly sound.” The doctor rose up, and
Kinyeancleugh sat down before his bed. About eleven o’clock, he gave
a deep sigh, and said, “Now it is come.” Bannatyne immediately drew
near, and desired him to think upon those comfortable promises of our
Saviour Jesus Christ, which he had so often declared to others; and,
perceiving that he was {232} speechless, requested him to give them a
sign that he heard them, and died in peace. Upon this he lifted up one
of his hands, and, sighing twice, expired without a struggle.[297]
He died in the sixty‑seventh year of his age, not so much oppressed
with years, as worn out and exhausted by his extraordinary labours of
body and anxieties of mind. Few men were ever exposed to more dangers,
or underwent greater hardships. From the time that he embraced the
reformed religion till he breathed his last, seldom did he enjoy a
respite from trouble; and he emerged from one scene of difficulty and
danger, only to be involved in another still more distressing. Obliged
to flee from St Andrews to escape the fury of cardinal Beatoun,
he found a retreat in East Lothian, from which he was hunted by
archbishop Hamilton. He lived for several years as an outlaw, in daily
apprehension of falling a prey to those who eagerly sought his life.
The few months during which he enjoyed protection in the castle of
St Andrews, were succeeded by a long and rigorous captivity. After
enjoying some repose in England, he was again driven into banishment,
and for five years wandered as an exile on the continent. When he
returned to his native country, it was to engage in a struggle of
the most perilous and arduous {233} kind. After the Reformation was
established, and he was settled in the capital, he was involved in
a continual contest with the court. When he was relieved from this
warfare, and thought only of ending his days in peace, he was again
called into the field; and, although scarcely able to walk, was
obliged to remove from his flock, and to avoid the fury of his enemies
by submitting to a new banishment. He was repeatedly condemned for
heresy, and proclaimed an outlaw; thrice he was accused of high
treason, and on two of these occasions he appeared and underwent a
trial. A price was publicly set on his head; assassins were employed
to kill him; and his life was attempted both with the pistol and the
dagger. Yet he escaped all these perils, and finished his course in
peace and in honour. No wonder that he was weary of the world, and
anxious to depart; and with great propriety might it be said, at his
decease, that “he rested from his labours.”
On Wednesday, the 26th of November, he was interred in the churchyard
of St Giles.[298] His funeral {234} was attended by the newly elected
regent, Morton, by all the nobility who were in the city, and a great
concourse of people. When his body was laid in the grave, the regent
emphatically pronounced his eulogium, in these words, “There lies he,
who never feared the face of man.”[299]
The character of this extraordinary man has been drawn in opposite
colours, by different writers, and at different times. And the changes
which have taken place in the public opinion about him, with the
causes which have produced them, form a subject neither uncurious,
nor unworthy of attention.
The interest excited by the revolutions of Scotland, ecclesiastical
and political, in which he acted so conspicuous a part, caused his
name to be known throughout Europe, more extensively than those of
most of the reformers. When we reflect, that the Roman catholics
looked upon him as the principal instrument in overthrowing their
religious establishment in this country, we are prepared to expect
that writers of that persuasion would represent his character in an
unfavourable light; and that, in addition to the common charges of
heresy and apostasy, they would describe him as a man of a restless,
turbulent spirit, and of rebellious principles. We will not even be
greatly surprised though we find them charging him with whoredom,
because, being a priest, he entered {235} into wedlock, once and
a second time; and imputing his change of religion to a desire of
releasing himself from the bonds by which the popish clergy were
professionally bound to chastity. But all this is nothing to the
portraits which they have drawn of him, in which, to the violation of
all credibility, he is unblushingly represented as a man, or rather
a monster, of the most profligate character, who gloried in depravity,
who avowedly indulged in the most vicious practices, and upon whom
providence fixed the most evident marks of reprobation at his death,
which was accompanied with circumstances that excited the utmost
horror in the beholders.[300] This might astonish us, did we not
know, from undoubted documents, that there were at that time a class
of writers, who, by inventing or retailing such malignant calumnies,
attempted to blast the fairest and most unblemished characters among
those who appeared in opposition to the church of Rome; and that,
absurd and outrageous as the accusations were, they were greedily
swallowed by the numerous slaves of prejudice and credulity. The
memory of no one was loaded with a greater share of this obloquy than
our Reformer’s. But these accounts have long ago lost every degree of
credit; and they now remain only as a proof of the spirit of lies or
of strong delusion, by which these writers were actuated, and of the
deep and deadly hatred which they had conceived against the object
of their calumny, on account of his strenuous and {236} successful
exertions in overthrowing the fabric of papal superstition and
despotism.
Knox was known and esteemed by the principal persons among the
reformed in France, Switzerland, and Germany. We have had occasion
repeatedly to mention his friendship with the reformer of Geneva.
Beza, the successor of Calvin, was also personally acquainted with
him; the letters which he wrote to him abound with expressions of the
warmest regard, and highest esteem; and, in his Images of Illustrious
Men, he afterwards raised an affectionate tribute to our Reformer’s
memory. This was done, at a subsequent period, by the German
biographer, Melchior Adam, the Dutch Van Heiden, and the French
La Roque. The late historian of the literature of Geneva, (whose
religious sentiments are very different from those of Calvin and Beza,)
although he is displeased with the philippics which Knox sometimes
pronounced from the pulpit, says, that “he immortalized himself by his
courage against popery, and his firmness against the tyranny of Mary;
and that though a violent, he was always an open and honourable, enemy
to the catholics.”[301]
The affectionate veneration in which his memory continued to be held
in Scotland after his death, evinces that the influence which he
possessed among his countrymen during his life was not constrained,
but founded on the high opinion which they entertained of his virtues
and talents. Bannatyne has {237} drawn his character in the most
glowing colours; and, although allowances must be made for the
enthusiasm with which a favourite servant[302] wrote of a beloved and
revered master, yet, as he lived long in the Reformer’s family, and
was himself a man of respectability and learning, his testimony is by
no means to be disregarded. In a speech which he delivered before the
General Assembly in March 1571, when in his master’s name he craved
justice against the calumnies circulated by the queen’s party, he said,
“It has pleased God to make me a servant to that man John Knox, whom
I serve, as God bears me witness, not so much in respect of my worldly
commodity, as for that integrity and uprightness which I have ever
known, and presently understand, to be in him, especially in the
faithful administration of his office, in teaching of the word of God;
and if I understood, or knew that he was a false teacher, a seducer, a
raiser of schism, or one that makes division in the church of God, as
he is reported to be by the former accusations, I would not serve him
for all the substance in Edinburgh.”[303] And, in his journal, after
giving an account of Knox’s death, he adds:――“In {238} this manner
departed this man of God: the light of Scotland, the comfort of
the church within the same, the mirror of godliness, and pattern
and example to all true ministers, in purity of life, soundness of
doctrine, and boldness in reproving of wickedness; one that cared
not the favour of men, how great soever they were. What dexterity
in teaching, boldness in reproving, and hatred of wickedness was in
him, my ignorant dullness is not able to declare, which if I should
preis[304] to set out, it were as one who would light a candle to
let men see the sun; seeing all his virtues are better known and
notified to the world a thousand fold than I am able to express.”[305]
Principal Smeton’s character of him, while it is less liable to the
suspicion of partiality, is equally honourable and flattering. “I
know not,” says he, “if ever so much piety and genius were lodged in
such a frail and weak body. Certain I am, that it will be difficult
to find one in whom the gifts of the Holy Spirit shone so bright,
to the comfort of the church of Scotland. None spared himself less
in enduring fatigues bodily and mental; none was more intent on
discharging the duties of the province assigned to him.” And again,
addressing his calumniator Hamilton, he says, “This illustrious, I say
illustrious servant of God, John Knox, I shall clear from your feigned
accusations and slanders, by the testimony of a venerable assembly
rather than by my own denial. {239} This pious duty, this reward of
a well‑spent life, all its members most cheerfully discharge to their
excellent instructor in Christ Jesus. This testimony of gratitude
they all owe to him, who, they know, ceased not to deserve well of all
till he ceased to breathe. Released from a body exhausted in Christian
warfare, and translated to a blessed rest, where he has obtained the
sweet reward of his labours, he now triumphs with Christ. But beware,
sycophant, of insulting him when dead; for he has left behind him as
many defenders of his reputation as there are persons who were drawn,
by his faithful preaching, from the gulf of ignorance to the knowledge
of the gospel.”[306]
The divines of the church of England, who were contemporary with Knox,
entertained a great respect for his character, and ranked him along
with the most eminent of their own reformers.[307] I have already
produced the mark of esteem which bishop Bale conferred on him, and
the terms of approbation in which he was mentioned by Dr Fulke, one of
the most learned of the English divines in the sixteenth century.[308]
Aylmer, in a work written to confute one of his opinions, bears a
voluntary testimony to his {240} learning and integrity.[309] And
Ridley, who stickled more for the ceremonies of the church than any
of his brethren in the reign of Edward VI., and who was displeased
with the opposition which Knox made to the introduction of the
English liturgy at Frankfort, expressed his high opinion of him, as
“a man of wit, much good learning, and earnest zeal.”[310] Whatever
dissatisfaction they felt at his pointed reprehension of several
parts of their ecclesiastical establishment, the English dignitaries,
under Elizabeth, rejoiced at the success of his exertions, and without
scruple expressed their approbation of many of his measures which were
afterwards severely censured by their successors.[311] I need scarcely
add, that his memory was held in veneration by the English Puritans.
Some of the chief men among them were personally acquainted with
him during his residence in England and on the continent; and others
of them corresponded with him by letter. They highly esteemed his
writings, sought for his manuscripts with avidity, and published them
with testimonies of the warmest approbation.[312]
{241} Towards the close of the sixteenth century, there arose
another race of prelates, of very different principles from the
English reformers, who began to maintain the divine right of diocesan
episcopacy, with the intrinsic excellency of a ceremonious worship,
and to adopt a new language respecting other reformed churches.
Dr Bancroft, afterwards archbishop of Canterbury, was the first
writer among them who spoke disrespectfully of Knox,[313] after whom
it became a fashionable practice among the hierarchical party. This
was resented by the ministers of Scotland, who warmly vindicated
the character of their Reformer,[314] at the expense of incurring
the frowns and resentment of their sovereign. Though educated under
the greatest scholar of the age, and one who was a decided friend to
popular liberty, James, in spite of {242} the instructions of Buchanan,
proved a pedant, and cowardice alone prevented him from becoming a
tyrant. His early favourites flattered his vanity, fostered his love
of arbitrary power, and inspired him with the strongest prejudice
against the principles and conduct of those men who, during his early
years, had been the instruments of preserving his life and supporting
his authority. To secure his succession to the English crown, he
entered into a private correspondence with Bancroft, and concerted
with him the scheme of introducing episcopacy into the church of
Scotland. The presbyterian ministers incurred his deep and lasting
displeasure by their determined resistance to this design, and by the
united and firm opposition which they made to the illegal and despotic
measures of his government. He was particularly displeased at the
testimony which they publicly bore to the characters of Knox, Buchanan,
and the regent Murray, who “could not be defended,” he said, “but by
traitors and seditious theologues.” Andrew Melville told him that they
were the men who had set the crown on his head, and deserved better
of him than to be so traduced. James complained that Knox had spoken
disrespectfully of his mother; to which Patrick Galloway, one of the
ministers of Edinburgh, replied, “If a king or a queen be a murderer,
why should they not be called so?” Walter Balcanquhal, another
minister of the city, having, in one of his sermons, rebuked those
who disparaged the Reformer, the king sent for him, and in a passion
protested that “either he should lose his crown, or Mr Walter {243}
should recant his words.” Balcanquhal “prayed God to preserve his
crown; but said, that if he had his right wits, the king should have
his head, before he recanted any thing he spake.”[315]
James carried his antipathies to the presbyterian church and reformers
along with him to England, and he found it an easy matter to infuse
them into the minds of his new subjects. Incensed at the freedom which
Buchanan had used in his history of the transactions during the reign
of Mary, he had, before leaving Scotland, procured the condemnation of
that work by an act of parliament. And now he did not think it enough
that he had got Camden’s history of that period manufactured to his
mind, but employed agents to induce the French historian, De Thou,
to adopt his representations; and because that great man scrupled to
receive the royal testimony respecting events which happened before
James was born, or when he was a child, in opposition to the most
credible evidence, his majesty was pleased to complain that he had
been treated disrespectfully.[316] Charles I. carried these prejudices
even farther than his father had done. During his reign, passive
obedience, arminianism, and semi‑popery, formed the court religion;
Calvinism and presbytery were held in the greatest detestation, and
proscribed both as {244} political and religious heresies. In the
reign of the second Charles, the court, the bench, the pulpit, the
press, and the stage, united in loading presbyterians with every
species of abuse, and in holding them forth as a gloomy, unsocial,
turbulent, and fanatical race. And a large share of these contumelies
uniformly fell on the head of Knox, who, it was alleged, had brought
the obnoxious principles of the sect from Geneva, and planted them
in his native country, from which they had spread into England. The
revolution was effected in England by a coalition of parties of very
different principles, some of which were not of the most liberal kind.
Though this event abated the force of the prejudices alluded to, it
by no means removed them; and a considerable time after it took place,
the great, the fashionable, and even the learned, among the English,
regarded the Scots as only beginning to emerge from that inelegance
and barbarism which had been produced by the peculiar sentiments of
Knox and his followers.
The great body of his countrymen, however, continued long to entertain
a just sense of the many obligations which they were under to Knox.
After the government of the church of Scotland was conformed to the
English model, the Scottish prelates still professed to look back to
their national Reformer with sentiments of gratitude and veneration;
and archbishop Spotswood describes him as “a man endued with rare
gifts, and a chief instrument that God used for the work of those
times.”[317] For a considerable {245} time after the revolution, the
presbyterians of Scotland treated with deserved contempt the libels
which English writers had published against him; and blushed not to
avow their admiration of a man to whose labours they were indebted for
an ecclesiastical establishment, more scriptural and more liberal than
that of which their neighbours could boast. The Union first produced
a change in our national feelings on this subject. The shortlived
jealousy of English predominance, felt by many of our countrymen
on that occasion, was succeeded by a passion for conformity to our
southern neighbours; and so fond did we become of their good opinion,
and so eager to secure it, that we were disposed to sacrifice to their
taste and their prejudices, sentiments which truth as well as national
honour required us to retain and cherish. Our most popular writers
are not exempt from this charge; and even in works professing to be
executed by the united talents of our literati, the misrepresentations
and gross blunders of which English writers had been guilty in their
accounts of our reformation, and the false and scandalous accusations
which they had brought against our reformers, have been generally
adopted and widely circulated, instead of meeting with the exposure
and reprobation which they so justly merited.
The prejudices entertained against our Reformer by the friends of
absolute monarchy, were taken up in all their force, subsequently to
the revolution, by the adherents of the Stuart family, whose religious
notions, approximating very nearly to the popish, {246} joined with
their slavish principle respecting non‑resistance to kings, led
them to disapprove of almost every measure adopted at the time of
the Reformation, and to condemn the whole as a series of disorder,
sedition, and rebellion against lawful authority. The spirit by which
the Jacobitish faction was actuated, did not become extinct with
the family which had so long been the object of their devotion; and
while they transferred their allegiance to the house of Hanover, they
retained those principles which had incited them repeatedly to attempt
its expulsion from the throne. The alarm produced by that revolution
which of late has shaken the thrones of so many of the princes
of Europe, has greatly increased this party; and with the view of
preserving the present constitution of Britain, principles have been
widely disseminated, which, if they had been generally received in
the sixteenth century, would have perpetuated the reign of popery and
arbitrary power in Scotland. From persons of such principles, nothing
favourable to our Reformer can be expected. But the greatest torrent
of abuse, poured upon his character, has proceeded from those literary
champions who have come forward to avenge the wrongs, and vindicate
the innocence, of the peerless and immaculate Mary, queen of Scots!
Having conjured up in their imagination the image of an ideal
goddess, they have sacrificed to the object of their adoration all
the characters, which, in that age, were most estimable for learning,
patriotism, integrity, and religion. As if the quarrel which they had
espoused exempted them {247} from the ordinary laws of controversial
warfare, and conferred on them the absolute and undefeasible privilege
of calumniating and defaming at pleasure, they have pronounced
every person who spoke, wrote, or acted against that queen, to be
a hypocrite or a villain. In the raving style of these writers, Knox
was “a fanatical incendiary――a holy savage――the son of violence and
barbarism――the religious Sachem of religious Mohawks.”[318]